About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13
. smith: mr. speaker, h.r. 6620, the former presidents protection act of 2012, amends federal law to uniformerly provide lifetime secret service protection to all of america's former presidents. i want to thank the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, for sponsoring this commonsense bipartisan legislation. america has a responsibility to protect its presidents and its families and not simply while they serve in office. we also have a duty to ensure the ongoing safety of those who serve in america's highest elected office after they leave office. in 1958 congress first authorized secret service protection for former presidents, which was limited to a reasonable period of time after a president leaves office. congress expanded this to lifetime protection in 1965. but in 1994, congress once again limited secret service protection for former presidents. this time to 10 years after a president leaves office. this 10-year restriction applied to presidents who took office after january 1, 1997. the role of the former president has changed
on the bill they just debated, changing federal energy efficiency laws. we'll take you live next to the capital, the chair and co-chair of the democratic caucus, just starting a briefing talking about the fiscal cliff and jobs. it's live here on c-span. >> and continues to preach the kind of message that i think the nation needs, one of compromise but one of assurity that we are going to be looking out tore the interest of the middle class and the protection of social security, medicare and medicaid for the people who are in such desperate need of those great programs that are the hallmark of our country. we have repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of hav
election. it would be nicer to get rid of it altogether. it is anachronistic law that is a problem. it creates a great deal of uncertainty. as you can see, it can do a lot of damage to the economy. there are a lot of reasons why it is being considered to eliminate that ceiling. it should be carefully considered. at the very minimum, we should push this to the other side of the election. we do not want to address the debt ceiling on a regular basis. it is damaging confidence. on fiscal sustainability, we need deficit reduction in the next 10 years of about $3 trillion. to get there, a balanced approach would be $1.4 trillion in tax revenue. half of that would come through tax reform and the other half through higher tax rates. $1.2 trillion in cuts to programs -- medicare and medicaid, social security, and other budget items -- that would leave you with approximately $400 billion in interest savings. at all of that together and you get $3 trillion. the spending cuts were implemented as part of the budget control act. if you add all of it up, if you go down the path i articulated, th
requirements. under current law, financial institutions are required to provide annual privacy is notices that the explain their practices. they are required to mail those notices regardless of whether or not that information sharing practice has changed. these annual mailings cost millions each year and do not provide the consumers with new information if the practice hasn't change thsmed will require an institution to provide annual privacy notices only if they have changed their privacy rules. this will eliminate an unnecessary burden for our financial institutions. i would like to thank mr. luetkemeyer and mr. sherman for their leadership on this issue and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. sherman: i thank the gentlelady from west virginia for yielding to me and i yield myself such time as i may consume in support of h.r. 5817, the eliminate privacy notify -- notice confusion act. i want to thank representative luetkemeyer for his work in introducing this bill. i've enjoyed working with him on it. mr. -- ms. speak
in the courthouse when d.n.a. started coming into be used at the courthouse. prior to that many law enforcement and prosecutors had to rely on blood samples and fingerprints, but once d.n.a. came in and we learned everybody has a unique genetic makeup and it can be connected and traced to perpetrators of crime when they commit a crime, especially in sexual assault cases. and convictions have gone up. the evidence is better. the proof beyond a reasonable doubt is much more available in d.n.a. cases. in 1985, there was a 13-year-old girl named lavenia masters. she lived in dallas, texas. she told her folks good night. she went to her bedroom which should be, mr. speaker, the safest place on earth for children -- went to sleep and during the middle of the night she was woken up by an outlaw putting a knife to her throat and he sexually assaulted her. then he snuck away in the darkness of the night. that was in 1985. she went to the hospital. her parents took care of her medical needs. d.n.a. evidence was taken from her. it was given to the law enforcement authorities, but that d.n.a. evidence from
to take these young women when they are interacting with law enforcement because a lot of them find themselves into prostitution and get treated like perpetrators as opposed to victims. this is the psychology of a perpetrator but they are victims and we have to get law enforcement and our judicial system to treat these women as victims and put them in a setting to pull themselves away from drug addition. >> in a minute, politico is -- politico is going to ask you some questions. one of the questions that has come in, who is the best leader in washington, d.c.? >> robert griffin, iii. >> why did the majority of americans reject the republican party in the recent election? >> it was an election and it was a very close election. if you look at the nims and the differences between the two. i think the republican party can do a better job of limited government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. t
. that was the basis of all the protests that began in iran as early as 1980. now, sharia law came into iran very early after the revolution, and under sharia law democracy and freedom of the citizen is impossible. the thing of sharia law that govern iran in 1979 and 1980 are still in place. they're have something cosmetic changes here and there depending on what administration is president of iran. if you wore nail polish you could get away with it. but does that really make a big difference? does that mean that iran becomes free and independent are in khamenei? no. under this constitution freedom and democracy in iran is impossible. i'm sure you all know about the american hostages. everybody knows about that. but just after those hostages were released, i was in prison in iran, and at the time we became the leader of the movement was the prime minister. now, i was -- just explained with cable. and then -- then they make you walk and then when the sun goes down, they beat you again. it's a cycle. -under things in the better now for political prisoners in iran? no, they are not. it's exactly the same.
said in a law that they would pay that money back in a trust fund. but there is suspicion on whether that is rarely ever going to happen. that feeds into their concern about what will happen to social security. is it going to be changed in ways that affect the benefits? host: all of the calls to simplify the tax code, to streamline it, and that may certainly mean to itemize the credits of that take place on the tax returns. guest: the complexity of the tax system is a huge problem. everyone from the irs on down to congress and the industry out there, if you will, the financial accounting industry, everyone recognizes is an enormous problem and causes people to pay a lot more than they otherwise would. most people do not do their own taxes anymore because they are so complex. they rely on software that is kind of a black box. it is hard to know how the tax system works anymore. people do not have as much of an incentive to take a deduction if they do not know it is there. and the software is what they are depending on. host: does simplifying the tax code as necessarily mean lessening
for energy information. we are by law -- it is supposed to be unbiased and neutral in our development of energy analysis, using the debt that we collect -- data that we collect. the annual energy outlook reference case, which were published today, is not really a forecast as it is a baseline. it is built on the idea of existing law and regulation so that the public and policymakers can compare what new laws and regulations or changes in world events might mean to our baseline. host: frank verrastro doggett is vice president of the energy program at the nonprofit center for strategic and international studies. who uses these eia projections? guest: the data sets the reference cases. they're not really pinpoints, because nobody gets 24 the right. but the trends are really important -- 2040 right. but the trends are really important. agencies around the world, universities, financial analysts on wall street, everyone uses these kinds of reports to look at what the forecast on this change in energy landscape looks like. host: we are taking your calls and questions for both mr. for siemins
they say, well, our property, our cars, our technology wears out faster. guest: the current law is not correct. and this has to do with the retailers and the restaurants. their provision is that they get to deduct their property over 15 years instead of over 39 years. and they say, you know, 39 years is unrealistic and 15 years is more on money. host: how long you have been writing about taxes? guest: i've been write being taxes for maybe five years. host: how much do you think you know about the u.s. tax code? guest: not so much. i mean, like, i talk to tax experts, people with law degrees. and they probably know a lot about one part of the tax code. so, there are only like a few people i know who just have an encyclopedic knowledge about the entire thing who could say, in section 140-c-34 -- so those are very few and far between. i know more than many people. host: if somebody sat you down and said, write a book about the u.s. tax code -- guest: i could probably write about it in a more entertaining way. that's why i'm here to sort of bridge the gap between the tax nerds who k
on sharia law. it is by its very nature anti-west, anti-democratic, anti-liberal and anti-peace. it's interests are opposite to ours. this is islamism, it is the opposite of democracy. democracy -- people are the source of legitimacy. periodic elections to choose one's representatives. the idea that the political minority can eventually become the majority. respect for certain rights. protection for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. protection that goes beyond tolerance and of course the rule of law, the respect for a judiciary that is independent. today's debate is simple. we aren't asking whether they can be good muslims and good democrats, the answer to that is yes. but can islammists be democrat. can advocates of the ideology of fundamentalism lead their countries to democracy? the answer is an obvious no. our answer is grounded inexperience and fact. their answer is grounded in hope and assertion. we have experiences, iran, gaza, sudan, lebanon, turkey, in none of these countries have the attributes of democracy occurred when islammists were in power. rights are re
extended all of those changes in 2010. that's the law of the land still today. tax policy has been exactly the same over this continuum. what has changed, mr. speaker, what has changed is the spending. the reason deficits have grown not one, not two, not three but almost four times larger than the previous record deficit in american history is not because tax policy has changed, it hasn't. it's because federal spending policy has changed. and that's what we have to get our arms around here in this body. what i show going forward, mr. speaker, put a little square around the annual budget deficits that have been run during the first four years of the obama administration, but i also project what the congressional budget office believes, that's a nonpartisan budget planning group we have here on capitol hill, what they believe is in store for us in the future if we continue under current policy. -h tsh-that's trillion dollar deficits going out for years to come. the problem is not tax policy, mr. speaker, the problem is spending policy. can we improve tax policy? you better believe it. mr. sp
's health care law and how that can impact the possibility of -- [inaudible] being on the table during this discussion? >> no specific discussion of -- there was no specific discussion of how the health -- the new health plan will affect medicare or will affect the economy. there's no specific discussion on that. there wasn't any lengthy discussion on the establishment of the exchanges. the focus was on what has just been reported. and that is that the states are willing to share the sacrifice. we don't want to take it all. but we're willing to do our part. we don't need shifting. we don't need cuts on the federal level that merely require tax increases on the state level. and so there was the unity by all of these governors and by our efforts not as has been pointed out, to get too specific on any one area but to offer our willingness to go forward and aid and assist with thoughts, ideas and suggestions. but there wasn't a detail-specific discussion about federal health care and the impact that it would have on medicare cuts or the impact that it would have on the economy in general.
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)